Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR4256 14
Original file (NR4256 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7015. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

JSR

Docket No: NR4256-14
29 May 2014

 

Dear Sergeant iy

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
naval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the
United States Code, section 1552.

You requested modifying the fitness reports for 13 June 2010 to
31 March 2011 and 1 April to 22 August 2011 in accordance with
the reporting senior’s (RS‘’s) letter dated 1 May 2013 and the
reviewing officer’s (RO’s) endorsement dated 3 May 2013.
Specifically, you requested modifying the report for 13 June
2010 to 31 March 2011 by raising the mark in section E£.1
(“Courage”) from “BY” (sixth best of seven possible marks) to “C”
(fifth best): D.1 (*Performance”) from “D" (fourth best) to “E”
(third best); and D.2 (“Proficiency”), E.3 (“Initiative”), F.2
(“Developing Subordinates”), G.2 (“Decision Making Ability”) and
G.3 (*dJudgment”) from “C” to “D” and modifying the report for 1
April to 22 August 2011 by raising the mark in section E.3 from
"DY to “EY”; and sections E.1, E.2 {*Effectiveness under
Stress”), F.2, G.2 and G.3 from *“C” to “D.”

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 29 May 2014. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of this
Board. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted
of your application, together with all material submitted in
support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes,
regulations and policies. In addition, the Board considered the
report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation
Review Board (PERB), dated 31 March 2014, a copy of which is
attached.

“After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially
concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB.
Accordingly, your application has been denied. The names and
votes of the members of the panel will be furnished upon
request.

Although the Board voted not to modify either of the reports in
question, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s
endorsement to future selection boards.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
Material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. In this regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

TD | oo

ROBERT D. ZSALMAN
Acting Executive Director

Enclosure

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2012 | 07272-12

    Original file (07272-12.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 11 April 2013. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, reguiations and policies. The Board found that your FY 2012 failure of selection should stand as well, since it found insufficient basis to modify your fitness report record;...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02153-10

    Original file (02153-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    : A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 29 April 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02226-10

    Original file (02226-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 9 July 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9184 13

    Original file (NR9184 13.pdf) Auto-classification: Approved

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS 701 58. Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Subject, hereinafter referred to as Petitioner, filed written application, enclosure (1), with this Board requesting, in effect, that the applicable naval record be corrected by modifying the fitness report for 1 July 2012 to 31 March 2013 (copy at Tab A), in accordance with the reviewing officer (RO)’s letter of 22 May 2013 (at enclosure (1)), by raising the mark in section K.3...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 02180-10

    Original file (02180-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report in question, you may submit the RS's letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11630-08

    Original file (11630-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    You requested that the fitness report for 10 January to 29 July 2006 be modified, in accordance with the reporting senior’s (RS’s) letter dated 16 November 2006 and the reviewing officer’s (RO’s) undated endorsement, by raising the mark in Section G.1 (“Professional Military Education”) from *c” (fifth best of seven possible marks) to “E” (third best) and section G.3 (“Judgment”) from “B” (sixth best) to *c.” A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 09484-10

    Original file (09484-10.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 21 October 2010. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2014 | NR9154 14

    Original file (NR9154 14.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 15 October 2014. New evidence is evidence not previously considered by the Board prior to making its decision in this case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2006 | 00625-06

    Original file (00625-06.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    In addition, the Board considered the report of the Headquarters Marine Corps Performance Evaluation Review Board (PERB), dated 19 January 2006, a copy of which is attached.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error or injustice. In this connection, the Board substantially concurred with the comments contained in the report of the PERB. consequently,...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 08554-09

    Original file (08554-09.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board further concurred with the advisory opinion in = concluding your selection by the FY 2010 Lieutenant Colonel Selection Board would have been definitely unlikely, even if your record had not included the fitness report CMC has directed removing. request, a Although the Board voted not to modify the fitness report for i July 2005 to 21 June 2006, you may submit the RS’s letter and the RO’s endorsement to future selection boards. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an...